Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivaagarathu

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Izno (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaagarathu[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely undersourced film that is not mainstream nor notable. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; can't find anything more than database listings or YouTube videos for this one Spiderone 08:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To TamilMirchi (talk · contribs), Spiderone (talk · contribs) Latest COMPLETE OVERHAUL Please read the latest version, I reformat and rewrite the article into mainstream form and format styles // From no references to WITH references // Removed excessive wordings // I added Varnam and Maraz TV, which are the local reliable news websites that brings reliable information. Varnam source features super complete review. Yahoo news site cites the release. Better than never. // Remove other excessive external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)
Comment - Vallinam provides a review and it's a good one by the looks of it. If there is one more that could be found, I would happily change my vote to keep. Maraz is simply a press release and does nothing towards notability and the Yahoo source is a passing mention so not acceptable either. Spiderone 09:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One review does not pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as does have one full reliable sources review included in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- One review isn't enough to establish notability. If the film is indeed notable then it should have been covered by more than one platform. Fails GNG. Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The one review present seems to be the base supporting the entire article. Both of the other refs provided do not contribute anything towards establishing notability which basically renders their existence moot, making it a one source article. Tagging for improvement could have been done by the nom too. The point of an Afd is to make an assessment based on notability... so currently all-in-all the article fails WP:NFILM. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.